I hear you there, J. As a reader of actual novels that span many hundreds of pages, I honestly find it a bit offensive that comic book nerds get so uppity about crap like this based on a 30-year history of 500 comic books that have enough combined dialogue in them to read in an hour.

Nitpicking movies based on comic books is ridiculous to me. There was never substantive extended dialogue for detail in the first place, and comic books inherently have tons of room for interpretation because of that.

RolandDeschain wrote:I hear you there, J. As a reader of actual novels that span many hundreds of pages, I honestly find it a bit offensive that comic book nerds get so uppity about crap like this based on a 30-year history of 500 comic books that have enough combined dialogue in them to read in an hour.

Nitpicking movies based on comic books is ridiculous to me. There was never substantive extended dialogue for detail in the first place, and comic books inherently have tons of room for interpretation because of that.

Flame away...

The Superman series isn't that great anyways. It's a fun character to read about, but it's not like they were 'A Tale of Two Cities' or anything.

I enjoy ruining threads by making them about personal attacks and then commenting about how personal attacks make the other person's argument invalid.

There's NOTHING wrong with Hollywood rebooting/making comic book films. I dont understand the old man criticism of "no originality" here. It reeks of dudes complaining to complaing, whether the complaing fits or not.

Uggh, I'm not sure why I allowed myself to expect something decent with this film? It's a flawed/boring character with a flawed/boring director. I didn't go into it expecting Cronenberg, but damn if I didn't expect entertainment. I haven't seen it yet, I will tonight, but im kinda regretting that already.

Fistbump, Pehawk. I completely agree. People put too damned much merit into originality. Something doesn't have to be original to be good. If someone takes movie X that was good, but not great, in its original release and remakes it and now everyone gives it a 9/10, who CARES if it's not original?

It's also hypocrisy, and here's how: All of you people whining about the lack of originality in film have no problem with it in music. I can guarantee you there isn't a person on this forum that does not have at least ONE instance of a song that they like a cover version of better than the original version.

Why do you give music a pass for this and have NO PROBLEMS with popular songs being covered by 5-10 different bands over the decades, yet remaking a superhero movie or whatever is something to whine about Hollywood over?

I don't see you whining about Johnny Cash covering "Hurt" by NIN, or "Mad World" by Gary Jules, used to such great effect in the film Donnie Darko, or Jimi Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower.

There are countless examples of covers that are as good as, or better than, their originals. Yet, some people have a major problem with Hollywood doing the same thing. Hypocrisy, I say.

RolandDeschain wrote:Fistbump, Pehawk. I completely agree. People put too damned much merit into originality. Something doesn't have to be original to be good. If someone takes movie X that was good, but not great, in its original release and remakes it and now everyone gives it a 9/10, who CARES if it's not original?

It's also hypocrisy, and here's how: All of you people whining about the lack of originality in film have no problem with it in music. I can guarantee you there isn't a person on this forum that does not have at least ONE instance of a song that they like a cover version of better than the original version.

Why do you give music a pass for this and have NO PROBLEMS with popular songs being covered by 5-10 different bands over the decades, yet remaking a superhero movie or whatever is something to whine about Hollywood over?

I don't see you whining about Johnny Cash covering "Hurt" by NIN, or "Mad World" by Gary Jules, used to such great effect in the film Donnie Darko, or Jimi Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower.

There are countless examples of covers that are as good as, or better than, their originals. Yet, some people have a major problem with Hollywood doing the same thing. Hypocrisy, I say.

The music examples you mentioned put their own spin on the song, which is why people like them as much or more than the original. The complaint is that comic book movies adhere to a formula of reboot: origin story, reboot: origin story, reboot: origin story. If more directors were churning out stories that riffed on the originals or added something different, then you'd hear the complaint less. Kind of why the Avengers did so damn well, IMO.

I do agree with pehawk though that Superman is a rather boring character.

I have 7:40 IMAX 3D tix for tonight, and I'm planning on smoking weed to hedge my bets. I rarely smoke weed, because I can’t hang with it. But, maybe it'll be enjoyable stoned?

Comic book flicks should NOT be included in Hollywood's lack of originality complaints, really. Their comic book movies, for frick sake. By default the character's there to be rehashed, over and over again. I think whining in this instance is pure whining.

As I said before, Supes is SO boring because of his invincibility and morality, all of it pretty much sucks.

I've only been able to slog through two Superman stories; All-Star Superman and Red Son. All-Star begins with "Umm, you're dying Boy Scout" and from there has an odd, trippy, cross-dressing, story and pace. Plus, you know he's dying. Red Son is an alternate take where Superman lands and is nurtured by communist USSR. You'd think the latter would be interesting...but even it gets boring.

Not bad at all. If you can slog through a few Snyder, cringe-worthy moments, its worth it. The last hour is pretty brilliant action-fight sequences. And, Cavill played a moody, dark Superman. That worked real well.

I'm actually looking forward to this now. A quite pessimistic friend of mine that usually doesn't look forward to like, any movie he sees with friends, loved it and said it was the best film he had seen in years. I'll be curious to see if he's full of it, or if it's really good.

I take it that's a hint. I always take movies like this as entertainment only. The moment you try to make issues out of them you've already shown you're stupid!!!

And as usual I want to be entertained not taught. Critics serve such little use as they try to make something up to tell us about that we could care less.

A good example is Story Tellers programs on PLDA. They have song writers telling us what their idea behind a song were at the time of writing. Trust me I didn't get the same thing from Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run that he did. I just liked the song.

Saw this last night. Two things. First, a gaping plot hole kind of ruined it for me. I ain't gonna spoil it, but let's just say the whole second half of the movie could have been completely cut based on a logical decision in the best interests of the decision maker. Second, they destroyed more of NYC/Metropolis (whatever) than Iron Man and Avengers put together. To top that, Hollywood will have to create two gigantic colossi that duke it out all across America, stomping on every city large enough to have public transportation. My second favorite part was the first 20 minutes, up until they sent Zod's crew up to exile in those space penis-craft. My first favorite part was the Carl's Jr. commercials on TV.

Other than that, it was a decent popcorn flick.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Saw this last night. Two things. First, a gaping plot hole kind of ruined it for me. I ain't gonna spoil it, but let's just say the whole second half of the movie could have been completely cut based on a logical decision in the best interests of the decision maker. Second, they destroyed more of NYC/Metropolis (whatever) than Iron Man and Avengers put together. To top that, Hollywood will have to create two gigantic colossi that duke it out all across America, stomping on every city large enough to have public transportation. My second favorite part was the first 20 minutes, up until they sent Zod's crew up to exile in those space penis-craft. My first favorite part was the Carl's Jr. commercials on TV.

Other than that, it was a decent popcorn flick.

I LOL'd so fricken loud when I saw the penis-crafts lift off. They shoot the bad guys off to space in penis shaped space ships and make them fly through a giant space vagina. WHAT... THE... Funkmaster Flex was THAT all about? I think I was the only person in the theater who saw it cuz people were looking at me like I was nuts.

All in all I dug the movie though. It won't win an oscar, but it was neither a waste of money or time IMO. I was entertained, and that's really all it's about. it's a comic book movie, you know what you're getting into before you even get in the car to go to the theater.

CANHawk wrote:I LOL'd so fricken loud when I saw the penis-crafts lift off. They shoot the bad guys off to space in penis shaped space ships and make them fly through a giant space vagina. WHAT... THE... Funkmaster Flex was THAT all about? I think I was the only person in the theater who saw it cuz people were looking at me like I was nuts.

I have an inside source that says somebody pretty high up on the production team made it a point to stick dicks(haped objects) in there quite frequently when Mr. Nolan wasn't looking. Friend of a friend type info so take it for what it's worth, but it makes sense.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I already forgot half the plot so I can't really speak on the plot holes but I definitely agree with Sailor, it felt like there was way too much mass destruction. It was pretty much my least favorite part of the movie.